Headlines

Richard Cohen

James Bond and the new sex appeal

“Skyfall” is a lot of fun — don’t get me wrong — but it still says something about our culture that, in the autumn of my years, I do not like. To appreciate what I mean, contrast this new Bond to Roger O. Thornhill, the charmingly hapless advertising man played by Cary Grant in “North by Northwest.” Like Bond, Thornhill pulls off some amazing physical feats — his mad frantic escape from the crop duster, the traverse of Mount Rushmore — and like Bond he wears an expensive suit. Unlike Bond, though, when he takes it off we do not see some marbleized man, an ersatz creation of some trainer, but a fit man, effortlessly athletic and just as effortlessly sophisticated. Of course, he knows his martinis, but he also knows how to send out a suit for swift hotel cleaning. He is a man of the world. He is, in short, a man of a certain age — 55 at the time, to be more or less exact. …

The new Bond is a zeitgeisty sort of character. “There has been a striking change in attitudes toward male body image in the past 30 years,” Harrison Pope, a Harvard psychiatry professor, recently told the New York Times. He said the portrayal of men in what amounts to the Bond image is now “dramatically more prevalent in society than it was a generation ago.” That same Times story reported that 40 percent of middle and high school boys work out with the purpose of “increasing muscle mass.” Many of them also use protein supplements.

This is all very sad news. Every rippling muscle is a book not read, a movie not seen or a conversation not held. That’s why Sean Connery was my kind of Bond. He was 53 when he made his last Bond film, “Never Say Never Again.” Women loved him because he was sophisticated and he could handle a maitre d’ as well as a commie assassin. Western civilization was saved not on account of his pecs but on account of his cleverness and experience.

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

If you like what you see in the mirror why torture yourself? I run when I feel flabby, and relax when I don’t. It’s been my experience that people who workout the most, tend to be the most insecure. We have too many other things to worry about other than “why can’t I get the bottom two abs flat?”

Frankly, more than the overemphasis on muscles vs physical strength I find the whole hairless thing deeply disturbing. There is something very surreal about the sight of a grown man walking around with no hair on his body except for his head. It’s unnatural.

There is something very surreal about the sight of a grown man walking around with no hair on his body except for his head. It’s unnatural.

Rocks on November 27, 2012 at 10:14 AM

I’m blonde. There is no hair on my chest or my back, and there’s absolutely nothing I can do about it. That puts me solidly in the 6% of men with no chest hair. Fortunately, 80% of women prefer it that way.

Roger O. Thornhill, the charmingly hapless advertising man played by Cary Grant in “North by Northwest.” Like Bond, Thornhill pulls off some amazing physical feats — his mad frantic escape from the crop duster, the traverse of Mount Rushmore — and like Bond he wears an expensive suit. Unlike Bond, though, when he takes it off we do not see some marbleized man, an ersatz creation of some trainer, but a fit man, effortlessly athletic and just as effortlessly sophisticated.

I thought Sean Connery pulled that off great. The whole thing about being a spy is that you’re not supposed to LOOK like a spy. Bond was supposed to be undercover as a genteel playboy. But, in a pinch, he knew eight ways to kill somebody with dental floss.

Daniel Craig tries as hard as he can to look like exactly like an MMA fighter who sidelines as a serial killer. It works great for an action movie, but it throws all the spy stuff out the window.

This is all very sad news. Every rippling muscle is a book not read, a movie not seen or a conversation not held. That’s why Sean Connery was my kind of Bond. He was 53 when he made his last Bond film, “Never Say Never Again.”

Uh, and as I recall, Connery got into pretty good shape for that Bond flick. Ironically he looked a lot more fit than he did 12 years earlier when he was a fat, lifeless 41 year-old Bond in Diamonds Are Forever(a dreadful entry in the series, BTW).

It sounds like Cohen has some self esteem issues or something. Hire a trainer or mix in a protein shake, but stop b-tching about Daniel Craig’s physique. Did you never see the first 4 Connery Bonds? Dude was pretty ripped in those. Bond shouldn’t look like Ahnuld circa 1980’s, but he should have an athletic and strong enough appearance that we believe he can take on henchmen like Red Grant and Oddjob.

Its the only place in America where, when the Chinese finally decide to call in their debt with a land invasion — it will be the only state that wont sit back and ask them if they’d like to read a book together instead.

This is an incredibly vapid article by an obviously jealous writer. In an collection of stupid statements this one really stands out:

Like Bond, Thornhill pulls off some amazing physical feats — his mad frantic escape from the crop duster, the traverse of Mount Rushmore — and like Bond he wears an expensive suit. Unlike Bond, though, when he takes it off we do not see some marbleized man, an ersatz creation of some trainer, but a fit man,

Does Cohen really believe that the nature of the stunts performed in a fictional movie has anything to do with the fitness level of the actor playing the lead role? “Cary Grant performed just as atheletically as Bond and he didn’t have to be nearly as ripped as Danial Craig “

Apparently Richard Cohen wasn’t around in the 1980’s when Swarchenegger and other body builders dominated movies and lied about steroid use. Even the cartoon He-Man induced a male-image ideal. This article seems 25 years late.

Frankly, Daniel Craig is a downgraded male body. The emphasis now seems to be less on muscle mass and more on fat reduction. You don’t see guys flexing chest and arms in front of the gym mirrors anymore. Now you see them lifting their shirts to check out (or show off) their abs.

I’m blonde. There is no hair on my chest or my back, and there’s absolutely nothing I can do about it. That puts me solidly in the 6% of men with no chest hair. Fortunately, 80% of women prefer it that way.

Washington Nearsider on November 27, 2012 at 10:21 AM

I was not referring to simply chest or back hair. I said body. As in arms, legs, etc.

Does Cohen really believe that the nature of the stunts performed in a fictional movie has anything to do with the fitness level of the actor playing the lead role? “Cary Grant performed just as atheletically as Bond and he didn’t have to be nearly as ripped as Danial Craig “

tommyboy on November 27, 2012 at 10:28 AM

BTW, interesting bit of Bond trivia. Cary Grant was offered the role of Bond in Dr. No, but he turned it down since he was only willing to do one film. I’ll bet Cohen was heartbroken.

Apparently Richard Cohen wasn’t around in the 1980′s when Swarchenegger and other body builders dominated movies and lied about steroid use.
You don’t see guys flexing chest and arms in front of the gym mirrors anymore. Now you see them lifting their shirts to check out (or show off) their abs.
blink on November 27, 2012 at 10:31 AM

First off Arnold was very open about his steroid use, then and now. Further, I don’t know what gyms you go to but I see bodybuilders checking out that status of their muscle groups in the mirror all the time. And in the movie documentary “Pumping Iron” there is a classic scene where Arnold lifts his shirt to…check out his abs. Competitive bodybuilding is ALL about fat reduction in the last stage of a cycle in preparing for a contest. That’s what makes the muscles so defined. In this stage diuretics replace the juice. Actually, the guys with the most powerful muscles are the powerlifters who as a rule are much stronger than bodybuilders but they don’t look nearly as defined and muscle bound because all that dieting reduces strength and then they can’t squat 1200 pounds with thighs parallel to the floor.

i think cohen just needs to work 50 pushups into his daily routine. Hes so jealous its hilarious. And i like how he pretends the big muscled up look is recent, has the dude never seen a greek statue from 2400 years ago?

I remember when Dan Quayle tried to use fiction (Murphy Brown) as a way to illustrate his point. He was ridiculed for being unable to tell the difference between reality and fiction. And Richard Cohen was one of them (July 16, 1993).

I think the image of Bond is just being given a little more realism, for today’s audience. All the adventure hero stunts and hard living actually take their toll, Bond is a bit more realisticly aged, (But this Bond looks older to me than his forty something years.)

I too prefer the actor with the trained voice that you know might wander onto the live stage and do MacBeth or Shakespearian Kings, and Skyfall certainly has “the old” in Dame Judy Dench, and the only problem is that they have been together and she has aged, but the new Bond is not as old…how can that be when they have a history?..I am able to willingly suspend this disbelief, because Bond has to go on, he can’t die… But you realize this actor was born in 1968, and that car in the garage…well.

I think at the end of the film I anticipated in the pause, that Sean Connery might be behind the desk as M. It would have been just the right touch for me. I thought the sentimental touches for us older folks, who too, have a history with Bond, worked really well in this film. I went last night, the theater was empty, the way I like it. A lot of Bond films were poorly thrown together on a proposterous theme, last nights film was superior. A good time had by all, very uplifting, some cheering in the theater.

I too prefer the actor with the trained voice that you know might wander onto the live stage and do MacBeth or Shakespearian Kings, and Skyfall certainly has “the old” in Dame Judy Dench, and the only problem is that they have been together and she has aged, but the new Bond is not as old…how can that be when they have a history?..I am able to willingly suspend this disbelief, because Bond has to go on, he can’t die… But you realize this actor was born in 1968, and that car in the garage…well.

I think at the end of the film I anticipated in the pause, that Sean Connery might be behind the desk as M. It would have been just the right touch for me. I thought the sentimental touches for us older folks, who too, have a history with Bond, worked really well in this film. I went last night, the theater was empty, the way I like it. A lot of Bond films were poorly thrown together on a proposterous theme, last nights film was superior. A good time had by all, very uplifting, some cheering in the theater.

Fleuries on November 27, 2012 at 10:45 AM

You do realize that they rebooted the series with Casino Royale, right? So this Bond has been on the job for approximately 6 years. Keeping Judi Dench on as M does confuse things, but technically her history with Craig’s Bond only dates back to Casino Royale.

Connery’s retired, so he was never gonna be M. It would’ve epic and fitting had he been cast in the Albert Finney role in Skyfall. Although it would’ve also been a major distraction having the original Bond sharing the screen with the current one.

Daniel Craig is the best Bond since Sean Connery and its because he brings a masculinity to the role that was sorely needed. Through the Moore years (and Moore was a good Bond in his own way, BTW), Bond had kind of morphed into the suave, “shaken not stirred” martini drinking playboy.

“Casino Royale”, Craig’s first Bond film, sets the tone perfectly. When asked if he’d like his Martini shaken or stirred Craig’s Bond replies “does it look like a give a damn!?” Jason Bourne had been raking in tons of money and was on the verge of becoming America’s favorite super spy. The producers of Bond had wisely sought to bring some of that “Bourne” feel into Bond and casting a man who actually looks like he can do the things he does is a good thing.

Funny how personal preferences work. I think Daniel Craig would be more convincing on a box of Lucky Charms than as Bond. In my opinion he is the least convincing. Heck, even Timothy Dalton was better. Not to mention his hypocritical anti-gun messages he spouts.

Daniel Craig, as well as Sean Connery, brings to the role a level of dangerousness not seen in the Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan portrayals. He looks dangerous. A man with a license to kill in the performance of his job should look as though he could do it without all the hand-wringing.

For me, Roger Moore portrayed Bond as Simon Templar (his role on The Saint) on the big screen. And while Pierce Brosnan was fun to watch in the role, by the time he got to it the movies had become so formulaic they were unwatchable. Not to mention he seemed a bit foppish.

The scene in Casino Royale where Bond made his first kill beautifully illustrates the dangerousness of the character.

Yes, he was. Others, not so much. In fact, they used to have “all natural” competitions in which every contestant was secretly using.

I see bodybuilders checking out that status of their muscle groups in the mirror all the time. And in the movie documentary “Pumping Iron” there is a classic scene where Arnold lifts his shirt to…check out his abs.

I wasn’t speaking in absolutes. Did you think I was trying to claim that nobody ever checked out their abs before? One is decreasing in prevalence and the other is increasing.

Competitive bodybuilding is ALL about fat reduction in the last stage of a cycle in preparing for a contest.

Competitive bodybuilding is no longer mainstream, and no longer the ideal male image. Fat reduction is important after the mass is built. Today, mainstream focusses on fat reduction without much mass.

Actually, the guys with the most powerful muscles are the powerlifters who as a rule are much stronger than bodybuilders but they don’t look nearly as defined and muscle bound because all that dieting reduces strength and then they can’t squat 1200 pounds with thighs parallel to the floor.

Yes, obviously, and powerlifters are becoming more and more rare. Regardless, this has nothing to do with anything I wrote.

You strangely seemed to miss every point I made because you erroneously assumed that I didn’t know any of this.

You strangely seemed to miss every point I made because you erroneously assumed that I didn’t know any of this.
blink on November 27, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Perhaps because you really didn’t make a point except to say that gym rats aren’t as big anymore which isn’t true at all. The average dedicated lifter is much bigger now than in the 60’s and 70’s. You obviously spend more time looking at fashion photos than in the gym.

Perhaps because you really didn’t make a point except to say that gym rats aren’t as big anymore which isn’t true at all.

tommyboy on November 27, 2012 at 1:14 PM

Fewer guys aspire to be gym rats. The average gym attendee is much more casual about their workouts now. More and more men are focussing on their “core” rather than developing mass.

If you say that this isn’t true, then you’re wrong. Bodybuilding has been reduced to a sub-culture hobby now. Bodybuilder images aren’t nearly as prevalent in mainstream television and movies as it was 20 to 25 years ago.

The average dedicated lifter is much bigger now than in the 60′s and 70′s.

That’s funny, because I didn’t mention a thing about either decade.

You obviously spend more time looking at fashion photos than in the gym.

I’ll put my hours spent in a gym and the number and variety of different gyms against yours anytime.